Sunday, March 31, 2013

This week’s GOP autopsy report, commissioned by RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, is a great start in the much-needed task of rebranding the Republican Party. As the chairman acknowledged, “the way we communicate our principles isn’t resonating widely enough” and “we have to be more inclusive.” The report contains 219 recommendations to “connect people to our principles.” To achieve that goal, the party will need a strategic vision of how voters think about politics, which is something that the report lacks. For that, the GOP can learn a lot from another American passion: baseball.

This year, about 75 million Americans will go to the baseball stadium to watch a ballgame, about the same number as those who will vote in next year’s election. We rarely think about why someone becomes a baseball fan, or why they root for a certain team. Nor do we usually think about why someone chooses to vote for a certain political party. But it’s actually a very useful exercise.

When it comes to baseball, fan loyalty has almost nothing to do with the brain, and almost everything to do with the heart. In all of history, there’s never been a baseball fan who rooted for his team because it had the lowest ticket prices, or because it had the most taxpayer-friendly stadium deal, or because its players did the most community service. For the vast majority of Americans, rooting for a baseball team — not to mention, voting for a political party — isn’t really a rational choice; it’s more of a statement of personal identity — a statement telling the world, “This is who I am.” And for most people, defining “who I am” starts with family and community, before branching out into areas like race, age, gender, and class.

Family is pretty straightforward. If your mom and dad are Yankee fans, you’re almost certainly a Yankee fan. The same is true in politics. If your mom and dad are Republicans, you’re almost certainly a Republican.

Community is also pretty straightforward. If you grew up in, say, Philadelphia, chances are pretty great you’re a Phillies fan. Likewise, someone who grew up in Republican territory like, say, suburban Dallas or rural Indiana is much more likely to become a Republican than a nearly identical person from Seattle or Santa Fe.

Cities with more than one baseball team, like New York or Chicago, show revealing breakdowns by race and gender. The racial split in Chicago between Cubs fans on the North Side and White Sox fans on the South Side is well-documented. In New York, there’s an intriguing gender gap between Mets and Yankee fans, with women gravitating a lot more to the Yanks. While there’s a few theories out there trying to explain that, one obvious answer leaps out: Yankees heartthrob Derek Jeter.

In sports, as in politics, people’s convictions can’t be conveniently reduced to who their parents are or what they look like. But those things are an important foundation, upon which more rational sentiments come into being. Once you’re attached to your team on an emotional level — seeing them as a personal reflection of who you are and what you care about most — a rational exterior comes into being through phrases like “the Red Sox are the best team because they have the most heart” or “the Republicans are the best party because they know how to create jobs.”

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

HOUSTON (The Borowitz Report)—In a sombre ceremony attended by former members of the Bush Administration, the former Vice-President Dick Cheney marked the tenth anniversary of making up a reason to invade Iraq.

Well, we also shouldn't be having almost parades, and stadium announcers sounding like Orson Welles delivering speeches about VICTORY and JUSTICE...but in for a penny, in for an Olde Towne.

Yeah, this seemed a lot worse than Ortiz's comment. Having a speech was weird, having the PA announcer do it instead of someone of some standing (or someone who is actually standing, visibly, on the field) was really, really weird, and now every time I hear the PA announcer I'm gonna think of his voice of Fenway's conscience routine instead of "oh hey, Stephen Drew is now batting." Shoulda just done the victim's photos, bring the teams out and have Papi say thanks to the cops, bring the cops out, and call it a day. Oh and get someone from the marathon or PD or some local star to sing the national anthem instead of trying to reproduce a perfect moment.

If true, I wonder whether he will face additional charges in the death of his brother.

Even if it was not intentional, he could probably be charged with the death of his brother under the felony murder rule. He would not be the first criminal charged with felony murder because one of his accomplices ended up getting killed by the police during the commission of the crime.

He's on camera depositing a bag that exploded and killed between 1 and 3 people. That 1 definite was 8 years old. If he didnt directly kill the other two, he almost certainly is a co-conspirator. He was a party to an armed carjacking, and engaged in a shootout with police on 2 separate occasions, one of which seriously injured a police officer. Even if theres no conclusive evidence that he killed the MIT cop, do they really need to charge him with vehicular manslaughter of his brother (who most certainly had a death wish anyways) in order to get the death penalty?

I'm still tying to piece together the events from Thur night. Did they or did hey not rob a 7-11? How did they come to a) kill the MIT cop, b) hijack a car and subsequently let the driver go, c) get into a shootout where the older one died? How did the younger one get away? I can't find a coherent summary anywhere.

He flew to Boston, called the switchboard at Fenway and asked if he could show up and sing.

I wonder how that conversation went?

"Hello, this is the Fenway Park switchboard. What extension are you looking for?"
Neil: "Well, I'm not sure. This is Neil Diamond."
"I'm afraid we can't give out complimentary tickets over the phone, sir"
Neil: "No, no, I just happen to be in Boston, and would like to sing "Sweet Caroline" at the game today."
"That's very good of you, sir, but we get prank calls all the time. How do I know you are the real Neil Diamond?"
Neil: "Are you kidding? I've been nominated for eight Grammys, and won two of them!"
"Yes, sir, but today, anyone can look that information up on the internet."
Neil: "On the what, now?"
"You'll have to give me some other proof of identity before I can patch you through to Mr. Lucchino."
Neil: "How about I sing for you? 'Sweet Caroline ... Good times never felt so good...'"
"That doesn't sound very much like Neil Diamond, sir."
Neil: "I'm 72 years old, give me a break!"
"Sorry, sir, if you can't verify your identity I am going to have to hang up."
Neil: "Tell Larry that if he doesn't pick up the ####### phone I'll just have to give a public interview in which I recount exactly what happened in that hotel room in Vegas in the summer of '77."
"I'm putting you through now, sir."

I bet that in a week, maybe two max, we'll see an official and signed off timeline as to the events of Thursday night. Hell, it might be ready by early next week. I don't think, personally, that a week or so is too long for someone with no real reason to know or care about the details of the thing to wait to get the details they have no real reason to know or care about.

Unless we're running with the Mom and Dad's "the government set them up" theory, I'm perfectly happy with "they did this bombing thing, then they didn't have a plan to get away, then they got into a weird, Michael Bay movie shootout, then dude was bleeding out in a boat."

Thanks. So it sounds like the younger brother did indeed kill the older one. Someone mentioned earlier vehicular manslaughter. Seems to me that if you kill someone while fleeing from the police, that should carry a higher charge than VM. Not that it's necessary I suppose. They could always keep that in their hip pocket if for some unimaginable reason the Fed case falls apart.

Someone mentioned earlier vehicular manslaughter. Seems to me that if you kill someone while fleeing from the police, that should carry a higher charge than VM.

Why? Did he intentionally kill him? If so, that's murder. If he killed him via reckless action (that could have been rightly avoided) but did not intend to kill him, that's vehicular manslaughter. It's not like they need the extra charge, and there's no reason to pretend that VM when attempting to flee police is something other than VM when playing air drums to your favorite Rush cassingle.

It could be considered depraved indifference, no? According to the interview with the police chief, he drove right at the cops who were attempting to handcuff the brother, possibly in an attempt to scatter and disrupt them to better his chances to get away. The death may not have been his goal, but it was pretty damned likely given his alleged course of action.

If his actions would have been considered murder outside of trying to disperse the cops and flee, then they should be considered murder. If his actions would have been considered VM outside of trying to disperse the cops and flee, then they should be considered VM. This is a particular warble of the standard "hate crimes" tune. Charge the man with what he did, according to the laws on the books, and move forward. Any attempt to stretch the docket just because he was a mass murdering bomber who drove his car at cops is excessive and an attempt to over leverage the power of the state.

If his actions would have been considered murder outside of trying to disperse the cops and flee, then they should be considered murder. If his actions would have been considered VM outside of trying to disperse the cops and flee, then they should be considered VM.

Felony murder is what I was think of. His actions would be considered murder regardless of the underlying backstory. if you are fleeing from the cops in a high speed chase and you decide to drive down a sidewalk to aid your escape and kill 5 people, that has to carry a higher charge than if you peacefully driving along and merely lost control your vehicle, no?

They are supposd to, unless the song is old enough to be in the public domain. I may be wrong about this but I think public venues that play music, as opposed to those who simply pipe in Sirius or something similar, usually pay a yearly license fee to the various licensing groups (ASCAP/BMI, etc) to cover this.

Interviews with the docs at Mount Auburn suggest that the brother may have been dead before being run over. He was apparently covered in gunshot wounds from head to toe.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that big bro didn't charge out of cover, run directly toward the cops (almost certainly taking more rounds in the process) in a scene from Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid, while wearing a suicide vest, with the intent of surviving. He was already hit and bleeding out. He was trying to get to the cops to explode the IED in his vest so his little brother could get away.

More interesting question is if the brother had obviously received mortal wounds, but was still alive at the moment he was run over. I think that's still technically felony murder.

CORRECT.

As I said on the last page, criminals have been convicted of felony murder more than once because their accomplice was killed by the police in the course of the crime, like a bank robber getting shot as he tries to evade the police while his accomplice lives.

As I said on the last page, criminals have been convicted of felony murder more than once because their accomplice was killed by the police in the course of the crime, like a bank robber getting shot as he tries to evade the police while his accomplice lives.

What if the accomplice commits suicide? What if he commits suicide by cop? What if Brother A told Brother B "I am going to kill myself by drawing fire because I want to die for glorious Islam; when I run out, drive away!"

I'm not being cute, I'm legitimately curious. Seems like there must be a line in there somewhere.

As others have noted, this wasn't a case of vehicular manslaughter - it clearly qualifies as Felony Murder. That the brother may have been charging the cops with little hope of success doesn't change anything. Of course, felony murder is probably among the least of the charges that could be brought from the bombing and related events, so it's not a huge deal. There appears to be a mountain of evidence to support charges that carry the death penalty.

That may be the personal opinion of some, but the law does provide the death penalty for a number of charges that are likely to be filed. It also appears that there will be "open and shut" evidence -- no possibility of mistaken identity or actual innocence, although these things will have to be demonstrated at trial. Assuming that can be done, the anti-death penalty argument is that it should never be used, not even for the worst of the worst. Since that isn't the law, I wouldn't expect that opinion to be followed. And this fellow isn't a boy, he is an adult.

That may be the personal opinion of some, but the law does provide the death penalty for a number of charges that are likely to be filed. It also appears that there will be "open and shut" evidence -- no possibility of mistaken identity or actual innocence, although these things will have to be demonstrated at trial. Assuming that can be done, the anti-death penalty argument is that it should never be used, not even for the worst of the worst. Since that isn't the law, I wouldn't expect that opinion to be followed.

Which is precisely why it should be avoided. Killing him has nothing to do with him, and everything to do with us. Nothing is gained, so we should avoid killing him "just cause we can."

Ramzi Yousef did not receive the death penalty. Terry Nichols did not receive the death penalty (although McVeigh did). And I would imagine that even now, there are occasionally people with things to learn about terrorism or bombings who go talk to either Yousef or Nichols.

Yes, 19-year-olds all over the country consume almost no alcohol socially or in public.

Not legally, no. Which I think is Sam's point, and one I agree with. Not that the death penalty should be off-limits for anyone under 21, but the law recognizes that someone under 21, while an adult, does not necessarily possess the same faculties of reason as someone over 21. Even if I supported the death penalty, this guy is young enough that I would want to see all of the evidence before sentencing.

Yes. The law is quite clear that they think a 19 year old boy is incapable of making some decisions. (Granted, he can *totally* be sent to get blown up in a desert somewhere, and liable for his crimes to the point of the state killing him for retribution's sake? Absolutely! But not a beer with the boys when he comes back home without any legs. Because then he's just a teenager again.)

There is nothing to be gained from killing this boy, and if 19 years old isn't a "boy" any more then we need to seriously adjust some thinking and laws to reflect that new perception.

This is as good a place as any to note the incongruities. In Boston, a suspect is in custody who was part of killing three people, and a lot of people want him to be treated as a terrorist suspect for many reasons, but largely due to his religion. Meanwhile, in Texas, a corporation violated ACTUAL ANTI-TERRORISM LAWS, killed 14 people (maybe more), and destroyed most of an entire town. I'd venture to guess that no one involved will see as much as a minute of jail time.

The fertilizer plant that exploded on Wednesday, obliterating part of a small Texas town and killing at least 14 people, had last year been storing 1,350 times the amount of ammonium nitrate that would normally trigger safety oversight by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Yet a person familiar with DHS operations said the company that owns the plant, West Fertilizer, did not tell the agency about the potentially explosive fertilizer as it is required to do, leaving one of the principal regulators of ammonium nitrate - which can also be used in bomb making - unaware of any danger there.

Fertilizer plants and depots must report to the DHS when they hold 400 lb (180 kg) or more of the substance. Filings this year with the Texas Department of State Health Services, which weren't shared with DHS, show the plant had 270 tons of it on hand last year.

...

"It seems this manufacturer was willfully off the grid," Rep. Bennie Thompson, (D-MS), ranking member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, said in a statement. "This facility was known to have chemicals well above the threshold amount to be regulated under the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Act (CFATS), yet we understand that DHS did not even know the plant existed until it blew up."

But it's OK. The old rich guy that owns the place is a good Christian and is "devastated", so I'm sure that's punishment enough.

Lax monitoring of the fertilizer plant in the small town may seem to highlight inadequacies in state regulations that provide oversight of such facilities. But at least one lawmaker from McLennan County, where the blast occurred, said it is too soon to call for new rules.

"This is a terrible disaster, but there's no indication that more stringent this or more stringent that would have had a benefit," said state Rep. Charles "Doc" Anderson, R-Waco. "Even in the best of circumstances, you have accidents."

In other words, there's no point in the government ever trying to do anything. One wonders why these people want to be in government, except to prevent it doing anything, of course.

In Felony Murder, the intent is to commit a felony. If someone dies in the course of it, it's automatically murder, although not necessarily capital Murder.

I have problems with some applications of felony murder as a principle; I think it should be "felony manslaughter." I really don't like the false equivalency between "John robbed a bank and some guy had a heart attack" and "John camped outside of Bill's house with a gun and shot Bill dead upon arrival."

I'm not even sure we should consider the bank robbery a more serious crime based on the heart attack. It seems a bit perverse that you could get angry and beat someone to death with a baseball bat, and be charged with a lesser crime than this bank robber.

I always thought there were obvious differences between an industrial accident (even if there may be some negligence liability) and premeditated murder, but apparently the differences are too subtle for some.

"This is a terrible disaster, but there's no indication that more stringent this or more stringent that would have had a benefit," said state Rep. Charles "Doc" Anderson, R-Waco. "Even in the best of circumstances, you have accidents."

No, you remarkably complete waste of cranium. The best of circumstances would indeed be defined as no accidents, particularly of this sort in this kind of facility. What a clown.

Yes. The law is quite clear that they think a 19 year old boy is incapable of making some decisions. (Granted, he can *totally* be sent to get blown up in a desert somewhere, and liable for his crimes to the point of the state killing him for retribution's sake? Absolutely! But not a beer with the boys when he comes back home without any legs. Because then he's just a teenager again.)

There is nothing to be gained from killing this boy, and if 19 years old isn't a "boy" any more then we need to seriously adjust some thinking and laws to reflect that new perception.

You execute him, and they will execute him, to bring justice to his victims.

Four people are dead, and many other crippled for life, b/c this evil #### decided to play judge, jury and executioner. Justice demands his life be forfeit.

I always thought there were obvious differences between an industrial accident (even if there may be some negligence liability) and premeditated murder, but apparently the differences are too subtle for some.

Almost exactly as subtle as calling something merely "an industrial accident" when the owners of the facility in question deliberately skirt safety laws in order to save a few bucks. Not to worry, though, it's usually just the proles that get killed, so you can sleep better knowing that no one important will have to suffer.

And of course, you completely ignore the fact the people who generally take my position want nothing less than to see that kid persecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But "industrial accidents"? Well, accidents happen, right? Why bother actually regulating these facilities. That seems to be the position of the relevant state representative.

The U.S. immigration system is "broken" and "needs to be reformed," Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., said Sunday on ABC's "This Week." But as America reels from the first terrorist attack on its soil since 9/11 - suspected to have been perpetrated by Chechen immigrants - he suggested "stepping back just a little bit" and putting reform legislation "on hold."

"I'm afraid we'll rush to some judgments relative to immigration and how it's processed, so let's do it in a rational way rather than an emotional way," he said. Lawmakers should focus on budget-related items, Coats said, recommending the Senate push back debate over immigration "a month or two... we're talking months here, not years." what my blithering idiot of a colleague Ted Cruz will have to say, rendering the rest of us Republicans unelectable in the next cycle.

Almost exactly as subtle as calling something merely "an industrial accident" when the owners of the facility in question deliberately skirt safety laws in order to save a few bucks.

I don't believe the cause of the fertilizer plant explosion has been established. Nor that there were safety violations, much less deliberate ones, although it would seem likely that there was, at least, some level of negligence. Seems like one should have hard evidence of deliberate wrong doing before equating someone with a premeditated murderer, but perhaps others have a lesser standard.

The U.S. immigration system is "broken" and "needs to be reformed," Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., said Sunday on ABC's "This Week." But as America reels from the first terrorist attack on its soil since 9/11 - suspected to have been perpetrated by Chechen immigrants - he suggested "stepping back just a little bit" and putting reform legislation "on hold."

"I'm afraid we'll rush to some judgments relative to immigration and how it's processed, so let's do it in a rational way rather than an emotional way," he said. Lawmakers should focus on budget-related items, Coats said

I don't get why you can talk about budget items after a tragedy, but not immigration. Does anyone think that the salient feature of either of the two suspects was that they were immigrants?

Weirdly, the bombing completely scrambled most of the pre-existing narratives. They were white, but Muslims. The younger one was relatively popular and successful. They didn't appear to have a clear political motive. I'm sure we'll learn more, but all the pre-existing narratives that were in place don't really work right now.

This is as good a place as any to note the incongruities. In Boston, a suspect is in custody who was part of killing three people, and a lot of people want him to be treated as a terrorist suspect for many reasons, but largely due to his religion. Meanwhile, in Texas, a corporation violated ACTUAL ANTI-TERRORISM LAWS, killed 14 people (maybe more), and destroyed most of an entire town. I'd venture to guess that no one involved will see as much as a minute of jail time.

I am not sure about the last point--seems like we should wait and see. Also, you seem to be implying that the Tsarnaev brothers did not violate any "actual anti-terrorism laws", which they almost certainly did. And unless someone else killed the MIT police officer, the brothers were responsible for at least 4 deaths. Furthermore, people want him to be treated as a "terrorist suspect" because he is one. You may be confusing "terrorist suspect" with "enemy combatant"--I have not been following the latter debate that closely but as you said, it seems there are several reasons people want him to be so labeled, with conflicting media reports about whether the government suspects anyone else may have been involved in the plot.

EDIT: in case it's not clear, if there were safety violations at the Texas plant that led to the explosion, then someone should face jail time -- although it should not be under terrorism charges. It seems at least possible that the non-reporting of the ammonium nitrate, if in fact it was the company's responsibility (and not the state regulator's responsibility) to report them, led to deaths of emergency responders who might have approached the fire differently had they known such materials were inside. But like I said before, a lot of this is speculation. I don't even think we know the death toll yet.

I don't believe the cause of the fertilizer plant explosion has been established. Nor that there were safety violations, much less deliberate ones, although it would seem likely that there was, at least, some level of negligence. Seems like one should have hard evidence of deliberate wrong doing before equating someone with a premeditated murderer, but perhaps others have a lesser standard.

Fertilizer plants are supposed to notify the Department of Homeland Security if there are more than 400 pounds of ammonium nitrate on the premises.

The plant in West, Texas had 270 TONS. I think that's a bit past negligence.

If the event the Texas plant was in violation of safety laws, especially "nemours" safety laws (sorry, Greg), and especially if it's reasonable to impute knowledge of the risks to people at the plant of those violations, how is the event materially different from betting your buddy money that, 'I can drive at 120 mph down that sidewalk without killing anyone', then killing several people? How are repeated safety violations in the pursuit of money and that lead to deaths, anything other than a form of depraved indifference to human life, or anything other than criminally negligent homicide?

On the news to date it's likely some people profiting from the plant cut corners, flouted the law, and killed people--for money. If this is the case, why isn't it worth life in prison?

I realize the workers are likely only blue-collar guys, probably lacking an ownership stake in the plant and, for all we know, didn't even speak English, but even if we only value their lives at 3/5 of a person, the penalties should be severe.

Fertilizer plants are supposed to notify the Department of Homeland Security if there are more than 400 pounds of ammonium nitrate on the premises.

The plant in West, Texas had 270 TONS. I think that's a bit past negligence.

The "source" for that article is a "person familiar with DHS operations". Might not be the last word on the story, ya know. In any event, if the owners cut enough corners, they could be liable both civilly and criminally. However, it's extremely unlikely that they intended to cause a devastating explosion - and intent is important in most legal systems, including our own. Arguing that the plant owners should be treated the same as premeditated murderers -- in the absence of much evidence as to the facts or motivation -- seems a bit over the top.

I'm well familiar with your "vengeance is snapper's, sayeth the Lord" theory of crime and punishment.

No, if I killed him, or one of the victims relatives killed him, that would be revenge and wrong. If the State of Massachusetts or the USA executes him after a fair trial, that proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, that would be justice.

Now, if you want to make the argument that he can't get a fair trial, I'd be sympathetic to that. But that issue remains the same whether he is to be imprisoned for life or executed.

Arguing that the plant owners should be treated the same as premeditated murders -- in the absence of much evidence as to the facts or motivation -- seems a bit over the top.

Sure. Good thing, though, that there's this juicy middle ground, where someone who can reasonably be expected to have knowledge of the consequences of (assuming) their negligence and evasion, ie enormous explosions resulting in gruesome, fiery deaths, can be prosecuted and put in jail for a very long time. Negligence + ammonium nitrate = a devastating explosion is not an equation it should be difficult to anticipate.

No, I'm not particularly angry at this guy. I'll admit this attack didn't impact me much emotionally. It really wouldn't bother me if he avoids execution. I wouldn't have been devastated even if he escaped.

But, there are a lot of other Americans who very much need to see justice done. The government acts for all the people in meting out justice.

What bothers me is people saying it is wrong to mete out justice to murderers.

Sure. Good thing, though, that there's this juicy middle ground, where someone who can reasonably be expected to have knowledge of the consequences of (assuming) their negligence and evasion, ie enormous explosions resulting in gruesome, fiery deaths, can be prosecuted and put in jail for a very long time. Negligence + ammonium nitrate = a devastating explosion is not an equation it should be difficult to anticipate.

Agree 100%. If the plant's owners and managers knowingly stored orders of magnitude more ammonium nitrate than the regulations allow, they should face charges for criminally negligent homicide.

The company's risk management plan, filed with the federal Environmental Protection Agency in 2011, made no mention of ammonium nitrate. (Update: Reuters news agency reported that the EPA does not require disclosure of the ammonium nitrate, but the Department of Homeland Security does require that disclosure, which the company did not do.)

Adair Grain, doing business as West Fertilizer Co., told the Texas Department of Health Services on Feb. 26 that it was storing up to 540,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate, along with up to 110,000 pounds of the liquid ammonia, according to the disclosure report. (Read the document provided by the state.) The company's disclosure was first reported Thursday evening by The Los Angeles Times.

Don't go there. You and I don't agree on the definition of "justice." There are other ways to take someone's life without ending it. There's justice beyond killing.

Sure there is, and if the person isn't a cold blooded murderer who deliberately sought to kill and maim as many people as possible, other punishments make sense.

In a case like this, only the execution of the murderer balances the scales. The only reason he shouldn't be executed is if you trade off no death penalty for a plea, and information about others that were involved (if any).

How are you going to look the victims and their families in the eye and say this guy doesn't deserve to die?

Weirdly, the bombing completely scrambled most of the pre-existing narratives. They were white, but Muslims. The younger one was relatively popular and successful. They didn't appear to have a clear political motive. I'm sure we'll learn more, but all the pre-existing narratives that were in place don't really work right now.

Oh, look, Shipman is pretending they weren't killing in the name of Islam. How cute.

Really comical how the same lefties who were hoping it was a white guy or even sure it was a white guy are now cautioning people not to "rush to judgment." Does anyone think the lefties would be saying the same if the bombers were white members of the Tea Party? It's laughable.

On the Texas plant explosion, its not clear to me that even had the plant owners had followed the law in question and reported the qty of explosive material that anyone would still be alive today. I guess you could make the case, as above, that first responders would have handled it differently, but I'm not even sure if thats the case. Would the first responders have even known? I'm skeptical the law works that way, but maybe.

From the link in #4575:

Since the agency never received any so-called top-screen report from West Fertilizer, the facility was not regulated or monitored by the DHS under its CFAT standards, largely designed to prevent sabotage of sites and to keep chemicals from falling into criminal hands.

Sounds like the law wasnt structured to provide extra safety, so who knows if any of this oversight would have had safety related consequences.

On the other hand, it seems extremely likely that someone who would skirt this type of regulation would also gleefully skirt other safety measures, and its entirely likely that they cut the wrong corner and caused the disaster. Unfortunately, it seems like an uphill battle to prove when most of those with knowledge of the matter are either dead or have a vested interest in not bringing them up.

Saying they deserve the same treatment as a terrorist is a wee bit of hyperbole........but if history is any indication, its definitely fair to assume that (assuming guilt for arguments sake here) whatever punishment they receive will almost certainly be less severe than it ought to be.

You want the government to be your sword of vengeance. I'd prefer he just rot in a hole for the rest of his life, all by himself. My way is much more cruel. Also, cheaper.

Wait, lefties are now against the death penalty because allowing people to live is "much more cruel"? You guys are almost beyond parody.

Well, we've learned one thing from Joe: He'd rather rot in a hole until he starved to death or the worms ate him alive than to get it all over with a pull of the switch or a lethal injection. I guess that's supposed to represent some sort of anti-leftist philosophy, though I have to wonder what chapter of Atlas Shrugged it came from

Weirdly, the bombing completely scrambled most of the pre-existing narratives. They were white, but Muslims. The younger one was relatively popular and successful. They didn't appear to have a clear political motive. I'm sure we'll learn more, but all the pre-existing narratives that were in place don't really work right now.

Oh, look, Shipman is pretending they weren't killing in the name of Islam. How cute.

Really comical how the same lefties who were hoping it was a white guy or even sure it was a white guy are now cautioning people not to "rush to judgment." Does anyone think the lefties would be saying the same if the bombers were white members of the Tea Party? It's laughable.

As much as Joe grates on me with his tone, and as much as I hate the "righties want terrorists to be this and lefties want terrorists to be that" tenor of a lot of this thread, he's right on here.

In what version of the current national security picture is part of the narrative not: a legal immigrant (muslim no less!!), returns to his homeland, becomes radicalized, then returns (legally) to commit an act of terror. Jumping to that conclusion premature, sure, but it sure looks like thats where the crumbs are leading. Thats pretty much exactly the type of terrorist the republicans are afraid of. I dont know why its got to be republicans, isnt that exactly the kind of terrorist we all ought to be afraid of?